Shaping Huck's Morality

We have discussed a lot about Huck’s morality in class.  He is a pretty tough character to read.

 Throughout the book, Huck’s morality is slowly shaping through the events and experience he has been going through.  Initially, Huck has been taught by Pap and widow Douglas as to what is “right.”  Back in chapter 7, Pap essentially told Huck it is okay to take something and call it “borrowing” if there are “intentions” to pay the person back.  Widow Douglas referred to Pap’s idea of “borrowing” as simply stealing.  In chapter 16, the slave catchers wanted to search the raft for slaves (where Jim was hiding), but Huck makes a lie that it is his family who has chickenpox so they don’t go near the raft.  Huck realizes that sometimes telling lie can actually be good.  But then he feels bad that he is betraying Miss Watson (as well as the slave catchers) for not turning in Jim because all she has done for Huck is care for him.  On the other hand, he would have felt bad if he has turned in Jim since they are friends and he would have broken a promise.  This is a turning point for Huck because he comes to a conclusion that he will “always do whichever come handiest at the time” (104).  Huck will do whatever he thinks will be best for him, not by what he has been taught.  So we still don’t really know where he stands on his moral judgment.  Like in chapter 26, he has been telling lies to Joanna and continues to lie to Joanna when she asks him to swear on a book (the dictionary).  Huck realizes this and decides it is completely okay to lie because it’s not the Bible.  Also in chapter 26, Huck still goes along with the King and Duke’s scam but then decides not to go through with them.  This was a giant turning point for Huck.  Huck always felt bad with this scam but all of a sudden he felt way worse decided to either turn in the King and Duke or hide the money (188).  It seems like when it starts to deal with the emotions of someone close to him, Huck begins to realize what is really wrong and what is good.

Jim As A Father.

Today, my group and I quoted passages regarding Jim and his family, and we thought about it together. One of the things that came up was the way in which Jim has been a father figure to Huck throughout the entire novel, and the information about his wife and children make strong headway in solidifying that paternal notion.

Upon learning about Jim's family, certain aspects of his behavior with Huck seem that much more genuine and fatherly. For example, shortly after their partnership is forged, Jim begins to speak to Huck in affectionate terms, calling him things that a caregiver would call the one cared for. "I tell you, chile, I 'speck it save' ole Jim - ole Jim ain't gwyne to forgit you for dat, honey" (104). And on page 128: "Lawsy, I's mighty glad to git you back agin, honey."

Even more interesting though is Jim's honest gratitude and happiness each time he is reunited with Huck, which is most certainly derived from the loss of Jim's own biological children and family. Even though Huck plays a nasty trick on him, which Jim may or may not have fallen for, he is still there to teach the little one a lesson, comfort him with his company, and appreciate his youth. "Goodness gracious, is dat you, Huck? En you ain' dead - you ain't drownded - you's back agin? It's too good for true, honey, it's too good for true. Lemme look at you, chile, lemme feel o' you. No, you ain't dead! you's back agin, 'live en soun', jis de same old Huck - de same old Huck, thanks to goodness" (96). Twain goes through great detail to describe Jim's reaction upon seeing the child. He acts as a parent physically running hands along the child's person, not only to look for injuries or breaks, but to reaffirm the fact that it truly is the child in question. And it is important to realize that Huck let's Jim perform this check. There is a trust and connection between the two.

When Huck returns from the Grangerfords, there is a similar reaction from Jim, but this is described through Huck's perspective. "It was Jim's voice - nothing ever sounded so good before. I run along the bank a piece and got aboard, and Jim he grabbed me and hugged me, he was so glad to see me" (128). So not only does Jim have a deep affection for Huck, but we as readers are made aware the those feelings are reciprocated through this passage. Further down the page, Huck describes the "home" that they experience on the raft. It is true that Huck appreciates the raft for its freedom, but given these passages, we can conclude that the notion of home comes from said raft, and from the companionship and family that flourishes there with Jim.

Why does Jim Act like He knows Nothing?

Throughout The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, runaway slave and companion to Huck, Jim, acts as if he knows really no information about anything. Yet, with Huck being the narrator, does Jim actually know as much as he leads on to know? Or does Jim actually hide his intelligence from Huck knowing that it could get him into trouble?

In several instances throughout The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck would tell a story or give his opinion on something and it slightly seemed like Jim was hesitant or did not completely agree with Huck, and in some cases did not agree at all. One instance of this covered intelligence was after the Duke and King dooped the city and took all their money, which was in chapter 23. As soon as the two men fell asleep, Jim was suddenly alert of what was really going on. Jim soon asked “Don’t it ‘sprise you. de way dem kings carries on, Huck?” (Twain, 165). Huck denies this claim by Jim yet thinks to himself after their conversation what “was the use to tell Jim these warn’t real kings and dukes?” (Twain, 167).

Every time Jim would get into some kind of argument or questioning of what was actually going on, he would soon concede to whatever Huck had to say on the matter. This is strange for anybody now days, but then it was very ordinary. Slaves were not to hold any type of intelligence or education, which was exactly what Jim was prior to his escape. So what it really seems like is that Jim knows exactly what is going on, but has to hide his real thoughts on everything. The feelings for Jim must have been fear when he would start to question these type of things with Huck, for at any moment Huck could have him chained up and collect his reward. I just could not imagine what it would be like to live like that, no ability to think except to yourself, yet to just live in imaginary stupidity, as Jim had to live.

Morality-Shmorality

We discussed Huck's "conscience" vs his "Heart". But something else I have been thinking about that has come up a lot is guilt. In the section where Huck is pondering his own moral code, guilt seems to have its place on both sides of the dilemma. He feels guilty for not turning Jim in, because it goes against what society has taught him to be right, and he would have felt "just the same way" even if he had turned him in, because he would have broken a promise to a friend. It feels like the opposition on the side of what is "wrong" is because it isn't really wrong. Huck knows this, but at the same time cannot shake what he has been taught.

When Jim and Huck are trying to decide if "borrowing" food is wrong. They compare Pap's belief that there is no harm in taking things "if you was meaning to pay them back, sometime" (76) to what the widow said about it still being stealing and not something any decent person does. Since they find merit on both sides of the argument, they try to compromise. The way they alleviate their guilt is by choosing a couple things they will not take. However they choose crab apples, which Huck doesn't like, and persimmons, which are not in season. Even though this is not a sacrifice it appeases the guilt and "it was all comfortable now" (76)

I think Huck also feels guilty when he helps the Duke and the King swindle the dead man's family. At one point, after messing up his story, he swears on a dictionary that he hasn't been telling lies, even though he has. This seems to him to be okay since it isn't a bible. He decides that if he tells on them it will be more trouble for him, instead he plans to fix the situation by stealing the money back. He manages to do so but he has to leave it in the coffin and doesn't have a chance to get it back before the funeral. He then feels guilty once more when the slave family is separated and sold. He comforts himself by telling him that they are going to be back in a couple weeks after the fraud is exposed.

I still don't feel like I have a solid understanding of Huck's morality. He seems to operate in this liminal space, in which sometimes what he does is what society values, or what he believes should be right, or just what is best for his survival.

Roxy - good or bad?

In class, we brought up questions about Roxy and where she stands exactly.  Throughout the book, we see Roxy’s morals/personality flip-flop.  As a general idea about Roxy, we see a dichotomy between a loving mother and a greedy individual.  Initially, the persona of a loving mother comes out for she switched “Tom” and “Chambers” in order to save her son from being sold down the river.  She wanted to see her son have an enjoyable and successful life.  However, her son “Tom” becomes spoiled and cruel.  Once Roxy became a free slave, she saved up money but her bank lost all her money, so she goes to “Tom” and begs him for money but he couldn’t due to his gambling debt.  Roxy told Tom to sacrifice her (sell her as a slave in a local area) in order to create a better life for Tom.  However, Tom betrays Roxy and sold her down the river.  Luckily Roxy escapes and makes her way back and as a result, Roxy began to blackmail “Tom” in threatening him to reveal his true identity, a nigger, to the rest of the town.  So Tom pays Roxy a sum amount every so often.  He gets the money from his thieving escapades that Roxy plans out.  This is when I began to view Roxy as a “bad person.”

In one of the earlier chapters when Percy Driscoll discovers that things are stolen from the house and blames it on his slaves.  All of the slaves confessed they stole something.  Here we see that Roxy is a “good person” by not stealing and has recently become religious.  But at the end of the book, we see that Roxy is part of these thieving plans and that she becomes less of a loving mother and more of a greedy individual, basically more self-interested and less about her son. I think this may be due to the fact that once she has seen her son has become this cruel individual that she gave up hope.  What do you guys thinks?

Reading Twain.

Having already read multiple stories by Twain and discussing most of them thoroughly, it is especially interesting to read Pudd'nhead Wilson and find clues that the author has left for the reader - specifically clues that wouldn't be noticed if said reader was not familiar with his work or his tendencies.

For example, in the beginning of the story, the ways in which Mr. Wilson received his nickname of "Pudd'nhead" are established after making an especially sarcastic comment about a noisy dog. Later, on page 86, Twain calls into question not the sanity of Mr. Wilson, but the ability of the town to truly grasp or appreciate sarcasm and irony in general. "But irony was not for those people; their mental vision was not focused for it. They read those playful trifles in the solidest earnest, and decided without hesitancy that if there had ever been any doubt that Dave Wilson was a pudd'nhead, - which there hadn't - this revelation removed that doubt for good and all." After our class discussions, it seems like this is a direct statement to the reader warning them that taking the writer's irony as literal would be detrimental to his own understanding of the book, and possibly life in general.

Similarly, Twain frequently hints towards his own views of religion and piety in his stories. It seems that this book is no exception. Upon Roxy's return to the area, we begin to see the ways in which she has flourished with her new found freedom. "And there was the church. She was more rabid and devoted Methodist than ever, and her piety was no sham, but was strong and sincere. Yes, with plenty of creature comforts and her old place in the amen corner in her possession again, she would be perfectly happy and at peace thenceforward to the end" (102). As in the case of Hadleyburg, religion and piety are described as possessions, and as such (as Gill said in class) they are capable of being bought, lost, or stolen. And for Roxy, this sudden religious conviction was only after losing all her life's savings to the failed bank. Therefore, Twain could be implying that religion is only something found when money cannot be its stand-in.

True Blood

I had a hard time deciding what to actually write about for this post. I feel like we have brought up so many topics in class that could still be delved into, but they branch off in too many directions. However I have been thinking a lot about the question of "What is the Truth?". Thinking about this lead me to wondering about who's truth we are looking for. I feel as though there are two levels to the book, the level for most of the readers of Twain's time (the ones like the citizens who cannot understand Pudd'nhead's ironic comments) and then another layer very subtly criticizing the norms of Dawson's Landing.

Before reading the end of the book I wondered if Mark Twain would end it in such a way as to suggest that he may agree with the slavery and racism that goes on throughout the novel. At times it felt as though Tom's attitude and behaviors were blamed on his "drop of black blood", so I thought it might feel in the end that even though he was held accountable for his actions it was not his upbringing but his heritage that was to blame. In a way that is what happened, no one stopped to think; Tom came from such a nice family, how could he do a thing like that, or something of the like. No, he lost his identity when he was exposed as a, albeit unintentional, usurper. Yet, I believe it is written in such a way because that is how the people of the town would think. Certain excerpts such as the following lead me to feel as though he is subtly hinting at the hypocrisy of the situation.

"The real heir found himself rich and free, but in a most embarrassing situation. He could neither read nor write, and his speech was the basest dialect of the negro quarter. His gait, his attitudes, his gestures, his bearing, his laugh - all were vulgar and uncouth; his manners were the manners of a slave. Money and fine clothes could not mend these defects or cover them up, they only made them the more glaring and the more pathetic."

Unlike in The Prince and the Pauper, this quote mentions the inability of clothing and fine things to disguise the man inside, they do they opposite and highlight his differences. To me Chambers after the trial is an example of how the changelings were shaped by their upbringing. Yet despite his speech and manners he is accepted if not welcomed into the upper tier of the hierarchy. All the things that set him apart from them can suddenly be ignored, in the same way that the Tom the associated with for twenty years can be "sold down the river" without a second thought. How can things get turned upside down so readily? Doesn't that imply that blood only has the power allotted to it by supposed knowledge and the societal perceptions that go along with it?

I find it hard to think of Twain as a racist, although the satire in many of his other works has been a lot more apparent and biting than in this novel. Is there a purpose behind that? or is it really meant literally? Does anyone agree of disagree with me?

The Claymation Adventures of Mark Twain

I saw a play a few years back called "The Apple Tree" and one of the acts was based on "The Diary of Adam and Eve". I wanted to find a video clip of it, but there wasn't a lot to choose from. However in the process of searching I came across this really strange children's movie called the Adventures of Mark Twain. It is not extremely relevant but it has some of the stories we've read, and I thought some of you might get a kick out of it.

Part 1 - the introduction and Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn meeting Mark Twain

Part 2 - the Jumping Frog of Calaveras County

Part 3 - the Diary of Adam and Eve

Part 4 - the fall of Adam and Eve and a lightning storm

Part 5 - The Mysterious Stranger

Part 6 - Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven

Part 7 - Adam and Eve after the fall

Part 8 - meeting the comet

Part 9 - Dual Twains

Parts are a little weird or even creepy, but it is an interesting interpretation and representation. It also has direct quotes from his works. The last segment relates to the lecture on the first day of class about Twain's two selves.

humor through one's faux pas

"I crave your indulgence: my nose itcheth cruelly. What is the custom and usage in this emergence? Prithee speed, for 'tis but a little time that I can bear it” (38).

This is a quote by Tom at his first royal dinner. This was when Tom didn’t know if there was a proper thing to do when his nose became itchy, whether a servant scratches his nose for him or if he could scratch it himself. Before someone could answer him, he couldn’t wait any longer and scratched it himself. Right afterwards he greatly apologized for scratching his nose. I thought this whole chapter was quite comical especially this nose bit. The humor came through Tom’s lack knowledge of good manners due to the whole switching identities with Edward bit. Their different upbringings was much displayed in this chapter. I could understand as to why Tom ate with his hands, didn’t know what to do with his napkin and what turnips and lettuce were but it became quite over the top once Tom stashed nuts into his pockets and this itchy nose bit which made the whole scene amusing. Twain did a great job at creating humor from the simple plot of identity swapping through Tom and Edward’s unawareness of how things are done in each of the other's lives.

Also, I find it clever in Twain’s writing on how he connected this simple nut cracking bit to the end of the book when trying to find the seal. It was a clever twist for me for I kind of forgot about Tom using the seal to crack the nuts.

In Lieu of class on Monday May 9th

"'Who helpeth them undress at night? Who Attireth them when they rise?'

'None Sir. Wouldst thou have them take off their garment and sleep without - like the beasts?'

'Their garment! Have they but one?'

'Ah, good your worship, what would they do with more? Truly they have not two bodies each.'"

Page 17

The Prince and the Pauper

I chose this quote because I thought that the two characters only really showed distinctions because of their experiences and this seemed like an excellent example of their different upbringings. The prince cannot fathom that people live without servants and even with all his reading about Princes Tom does not understand why one would have use for more than a single garment. Both boys are nearly indistinguishable in appearance and neither Edward not Tom appears to have a strongly developed enough character, other than vague mention of being kind hearted, for those who know them to tell the difference between their personalities. Of course they behave differently because they were raised very differently, but this is just perceived as madness in both situations. The only one who believes that a switch was possible is Tom's mother.

"the suggestion began to creep into her mind that there was something about this boy that was lacking in Tom Canty, mad or sane. She could not describe it, she could not tell what it was, and yet her sharp mother-instinct seemed to detect it and perceive it. What if the boy were not really her son at all? O, absurd! she almost smiled at the idea, spite her griefs and troubles. No matter, she found that it was an idea that would not "down" but persisted in haunting her. It Pursued her, it harassed her, it clung to her, and refused to be put away or ignored. At last she perceived that there was not going to be any peace for her until she should devise a test that should prove, clearly and without question, whether this lad was her son or not, and so banish these wearing and worrying doubts." (49-50)

She remembers that he has an unusual habit of covering his face when he is scared with his palm facing outward instead of towards his face. She decides to scare him in his sleep to see if he will do it. He ends up not covering his face at all, let alone in his typical way. It is strange that although it implies she knows something is wrong because of her "mother-instinct" it is interesting that she cant define what is different about him as the manner of his speech or a look in his eye or something of the like. The way she aims to test it is through a physical habit he formed because of a specific fright he had when he was younger, and she still isn't even sure if it is him or not until much later when she sees Tom dressed as king.

One would think that an uncanny similarity in their appearances might have been noticed when the two were in close proximity of each other. However they are only mistaken as each other when they switch clothing. Which makes it seem like it is the clothing, which represents their station, that is most important. The guards who were present when Tom first saw the prince and when the prince was kicked out onto the street, did not make note of it and only showed disrespect to the one wearing Tom's rags. Even in the end when the true king appears at the coronation it takes some time for everyone to look past his clothes and notice the resemblance even though both boys are insisting he is the true ruler.

The Clothes Make The Man.

In The Prince And The Pauper, it's interesting to see the presence and influence poor parenting has on the children involved. Evidently, both parties are lacking true parental influence or care, or even attention in general. Upon arriving at their unfamiliar homes, the boys are dealt very different treatments, but given very similar reactions. Rather than seeing the clear difference that would be expected of a true parent, the boys are received in a manner that implies suspicion and concern because of the utter ridiculousness of their claims.

Obviously, the story is set up in a way that implies that there "did not seem to have been any change made", and thus good parenting skills would not be in keeping with the story's significance, plot, or author in general. However, I find it difficult to believe that a true parent would be unable to detect the subtle differences between two humans, regardless of the intensity of their identical appearances. For example, I know numerous sets of twins that are considered identical, but close friends and family have absolutely no problem differentiating one from the other. Thus, one could clearly draw the conclusion that these boys, one born to immense poverty and the other to the throne of a nation, are not truly that different from one another at all. Neither of them have family in the ideal sense, instead having duties forced upon them and specific expressions expected of them, albeit in very different ways.

With that said, what is it that truly makes one man different from another when they have nothing like family to help define them? And for that matter, what is the difference when two men are equally stripped of their facades, or in this case, said facades are switched entirely? With a mother or father that cannot differentiate their own children from another's, are they truly a mother or father in every idealistic sense of the word, or have the males and females in question simply been reduced to animals on the quest to breed and propagate?

The REAL Jumping Frogs of Calaveras County

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who is from Angels Camp, California. When I told her I was taking a class about Mark Twain she got excited and wanted to know if I read the story about the jumping frogs. Apparently there is an actual frog jumping competition that goes on there. She said there are even little plaques on the ground, similar to the stars in Hollywood, for the winning frog from each year. I believe it has been going on for about 80 years. Here are some links about the event:

New York Times Article

Recordnet

Frog Town

1958

"Tule Jim"

15' 5 1/2"

Chuck Basacker

Oakland, CA

how to use 1,000,000 pounds that one cannot spend

"A Banker is a Fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain" -Mark Twain

The Million Pound Bank Note is an ultimate rags to riches story. The main protagonist, Henry, becomes the fortunate subject of a bet between two brothers. One brother believes that if a poor but honest and intelligent man was given a rare million pound bank-note he would thrive even though he would be unable to cash or exchange it. The other brother believes he would end up in jail or worse for trying to use what clearly does not belong to him.

Henry's first reaction is to think the brothers made a mistake and that he would be the one who ends up with the blame, even though he clearly was not at fault. I believe Twain is commenting that someone wealthy enough to have such money lying about would surely be the kind of person to hoist his own blame onto someone beneath him. He is unable to return it, but soon discovers that by waving it around he is able to buy whatever he wants without actually spending a dime. In no time he becomes a sudden celebrity and "swam in glory all day long" (pg. 387).

Later he is invited to a dinner, but most of the guests ate before attending. The situation is absurd because they are unable to sit down to eat because they cannot concede who has the highest precedence over whom. This ridiculous show of pride is apparently a common and expected occurrence. Instead they stand and eat strawberries and sardines, the order determined by a coin flip. At this "dinner" Henry runs into an old friend of his who is in dire need of investment help. He is faced with a choice of either declining his friend since he has no money to give, or falsely getting his hopes up. Instead he cleverly uses the only capital he has, clout. Henry tells the potential investors that he does know the man and can vouch for him and the mine. In the end he did thrive, and was able to marry the girl he loved as his prize.

I think this story raises a lot of interesting questions about where the power of money really lies. Henry simply gives the impression of wealth but it becomes just as powerful as if he really had everything people assume he does. Once they see it, no one he encounters actually questions why a man dressed as he was in the beginning of the story would have such a bank note. They are so impressed by it and desire to use his wealth to their own advantage, like the eating house manager and the tailor. He also is readily accepted as being extremely wealthy, nothing in his behavior or mannerisms gives him away, which I believe is suggesting that people are not inherently suited to be either poor or rich.

http://www.britishnotes.co.uk/news_and_info/features/millionpoundnote/331_at_300.jpg

moneytalks

I felt that Twain was mocking the capitalistic society in which that people will only treat you well simply because they want something from you (your money).  The 1,000,000 Pound Bank-Note story reminded me of a time last summer when I was looking to buy a new TV for my apartment.  My roommates & I had just moved in and we had no TV.  So I figured I would invest my money into buying a nice TV.  I went to a TV/audio store which had employees trying really hard at selling the merchandise to the customers.  As I was roaming around the store, I noticed the employees would approach the customers as soon as they walked into the store.  However, my case was different in which I got no service.  It was probably due to the fact that I look like a kid and was wearing a t-shirt and basketball shorts with flip-flops.  Getting no service was like for Henry receiving disrespected service when looking for a suit.  “He took me into a back room, and overhauled a pile of rejected suits, and selected the rattiest one for me” (384).  I was really close to leaving the store because I would ask for help but they would just tell me to wait one moment and end up helping a new customer who walked in.  I became irritated and did something out of my nature, I simply yelled out something to the degree of, “Hey!  Want a sale?  Cause I’m looking to buy right now!”  All of a sudden, a flock of employees came rushing towards me and I received great help.  Similar to when Henry showed the salesman the note and started using that to obtain all his needs and desires.

Also, I felt the story had slight cliché morals to it.  One being that it is important to display an appropriate appearance depending on the situation in order to gain a need/advantage/respect and the other is that“My friend, you shouldn’t judge a stranger always by the clothes he wears” (384).  

A True Story.

Although we've (I) already talked about this quite a bit in class today, I still wanted to delve into A True Story. When I finished it, I was surprised to feel absolutely no fulfillment. In my mind, this was not a happy ending. I felt bereft of something that I didn't know I was looking for until hours after I'd completed the reading, and I think it was a general desire to think that the mother and son lived happily ever after.

To begin, I was struck by the harsh reality of Aunt Rachel only being able to recognize her son through his scars rather than his face, his body, his physical attributes in general. Obviously, she missed all of his formative years, and she even addresses the fact that his growth was something that escaped her entirely. "I never thought o' dat befo'! He was only dat little feller to me yit. I never thought 'bout him growin' up an' bein' big. But I see it den" (117). Similarly, there is something terrible in the fact that she recognizes through his scars - details that were forged through pain and injury that have left their marks permanently. That could be a romanticist point of view, but it seems important, as Twain didn't choose a birthmark or freckle or something that forms naturally from the start, but is just as permanent and unchanging.

But when Aunt Rachel finally does find her son and recognizes him for what he is, the reader realizes that he didn't come back as he said he would. Instead he is there by chance, and he is happy, and he doesn't remember her. "... an' I ups an' says 'Git along wid you! - rubbage!' De young man's face kin' o' changed, all of a sudden, for 'bout a second, but den he went to smilin' ag'in, same as he was befo'" (118). Upon reading the passage, it seems that her son remembers something important but he can't quite put a finger on what it is. He's completely forgotten his parentage, to the point where something tells him that it's something he should know, but it's insignificant. And then when he does figure it out, there is a moment of recognition and yet the character says absolutely nothing, and Aunt Rachel simply ends the story with the fact that she's had no trouble, and no joy. Her son forgot about her, and never meant to come back for her, and although he's alive, he's not her son; he's someone else altogether that she doesn't know at all.

Twain Points to Irish Immigrant Politics

Mark Twain has been highly criticized throughout the years for his work, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which uses the publicly dreaded “n-word.” Scholars and literary specialists find much controversy over the use of the “n-word,” especially because Twain decided to enter it into his text over 200 times in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. However people may decide decipher the purpose of Twain’s use of the racial slang commonly referred to as the “n-word,” there is no denial of the breakdown of some barriers in the literature in regards to race. Yet, not just in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn did Twain insert racial problems that were present during his lifetime. In the short story, A Day at Niagara, Twain points towards the political problems of the Irish immigrants and potentially at how they were used in mid eighteenth century America. As during the times of the Civil War, racial politics concerning African-Americans and Irish Immigrants were very similar, without the Irish being enslaved people. In Twain’s A Day at Niagara, the narrator of the tale is visiting the falls of Niagara and is looking forward to meeting with the “noble Red Man” (Twain, 19). However when the narrator finally meets the Indians he is searching for, with a very over the top greeting, it turns out that the man is not what he thought the whole time. The narrators greeting was not accepted well, with the faux native replying with “An’ is it mesilf, Dennis Holligan, the ye’d be takin’ for a dirty Ijin, ye drawlin’, lantern-jawed, spider legged divil! By the paper that played before Moses, I’ll at ye!” (Twain, 19). This clearly shows that the man was not an Indian at all, but an immigrant from Ireland. This personifies a problem of this era, that the Irish man was poorly treated and subjected to a mockery of a job. Twain puts this in very subtly, which can sometimes be looked over very easily. However, A Day at Niagara was authored by Twain in 1869 when the mistreatment of Irish immigrants was very real. The problem that many have in seeing this hint dropped by Twain in his short story is that the mistreatment of the Irish is looked over in American history because of the immense problems faced by the black population in America during the Civil War Era. The question is whether Twain was using this portion of his tale to address other problems of the era, which seems to be true. Although the adding of the Irish as faux Indians is important to the plot of the story, it also addresses the problem of immigrant politics. How was the narrator supposed to know what was going on, because most likely during this period upstate New York did not carry a heavy population of native Americans. I feel Twain did this purposely and in a very low-key matter, and I applaud him for making strides to address other racial issues than just the problems of African-Americans. Having said that, I do not want to take away from the problems faced by African-Americans and the strides made by them to find equality. I applaud for Twain for being able to make several points in different instances about racial politics.


picture citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TheUsualIrishWayofDoingThings.jpg